The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1882.

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4327, 13 November 1882, Page 2

The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1882.

On Saturday evening the impression was pretty general at the Corner that there was to be a big fight over the Prince Imperial mine; that the directors, fortified by the opinion of the Attorney-General and Mr Tyler, had resolved to throw down the gauntlet to the lord of the flat. And yet the sharemarket was not sensibly affected. We placed ourselves in communication with generally well informed gentlemen in Auckland, in order to ascertain how the matter stood. At 9.30 to-day the following reassuring message was received:— "Nothing done; question unchanged." At 11 30 from another quarter we were informed that " Mr E. Graham has lodged a claim for half the Prince Imperial mine. His solicitor, Mr Bichmond, assures him that his claim is a valid one." A few minutes later another telegram of a character not quite so fierce came to hand. It reads-*" Mr Graham says that the claim is not actually lodged, but he considers he is entitled to half of the

mine. Negotiations failed on Saturday, hence bis intentions to go in for larger compensation. Tyler and the Hon. F. Whitaker act for the Imperial.. Mr Graham asserts that he holds a deed by which the late company relinquished all rights and abandoned the mine." We have the authority of a director for asserting that the company requested Mr Graham to slate his claim, which he did. He wanted similar terms to those he forced from the Mariner and associated mines. In response to the company's request, Mr Graham lodged the modest demand for a thousand shares, £100 cash, and £200 a year. It does not appear that Mr Graham detailed the reasons upon which the claim was based. The direc tors of the company submitted Mr Graham's little bill to the consideration of their counsel, whose opinion was that his case was, if not entirely bad, at best fery weak-kneed, and liable to fall upon the slightest attempt at judicial examination. Thereupon the directors took heart of grace, and placed themsclres in a fighting attitude. Not to be outdone, the claimant, seejng that his modest terms had not been thankfully accepted, set about possessing

himself of half the mine, Mr Graham's moderation surpasseth -.understanding; the wonder is that, he did not claim the whole mine, considering the contumacy of the Company. [jpnvintj the shareholders one half is generoMly unexampled. Mr Graham convenient!}' forgets, firstly that asking a thousand shares in a miv*; the scrip of which are saleable at £2 10s is very different to obtaining "the same number in a mine where they are only worth a shilling; secondly, ths'tt^e. associated mines ceded .his terms riifhififlj. because they were uot in a position to fights We do not-" for a

moment say that :Mr Graham has not an equitable claim Tor rent for'the allotments, used, but unhesitatingly advise those who have faith in the mine not to be frightened by ike " Graham scare." Our opinion is,that Mr Graham will be satisfied with some -concessions exceedingly reasonable rather than go !o law. But should the matter get into Court, an Auckland jury will not have such sympathy with the plaintiff as to award him exhbrbitatt damages, that is assuming judgment went in his farcr, which the chances are ag linst. The directors may yet deem if prudent in compromise on reason able terms —without prejudice, as the ■lawyers would say—rather than have this sword of Damocles suspended over their property and depreciating its value. For ourselves, we should prefer to see the question fought out on its merits, and settled for all time. .